I see no one has grown beyond teenage sloganing yet. Cool.

I would say that morality is the way in which persons ought to be or act, where "ought" is understood in a universal and objective sense. — Dan

Can i clarify something here (not realated to any previous discussions)?

Is this to insinuate that you can only conceive of "universal or objective" morality, or simply that the concept of Morality is this - and so, whether or not any theory obtains is irrelevant?

I support, in other words, your interpretation. I also hope this helps Tom avoid similarly circular arguments.

Treating the universe as an object is a category error. — noAxioms

This is highly likely to be the case. Makes for some really interesting Philosophy Club debates.

It is, because is-ought isn't about specific prescriptions but the nature of prescription itself. — Vivek

THis wouldn't get you closer to solving it, and it isn't the case. It's a preference of yours for reading hte term 'the good'. This violates its applicability to anyone else, but the person who assents to this reading of 'the good' as a relationship property. This is the entire issue in a nutshell, seemingly ignored, as it is in the Objectivist Ethics by commanding assent to a particular desire ("To Live! To Surive! To Thrive!"). Its not relevant that rejecting that desire might be irrational (whatever else could be so rational as to continue being?). But incredulity doesn't help. More on that below..

As soon as that assent is denied, the relation fails.

Have a read of Moore's Principia Ethica. Then Philippa Foot. Then Martha Nussbaum. — Banno

Good suggestions, but I don't think referring to other people is a good way to answer a direct question about your conceptions, is it? If the idea is that your view is directly derivative, providing three sources across two, arguably three generations, might not be as helpful as you think. Then again - it's TPF lol.

I need others with some deeper reading/interest to talk about it. — Tom Storm

It is useful for understanding human behaviour, but it essentially is a position (in all versions I've seen, from Moore to Harris) that relies on mere incredulity in the face of denial. This, to me, is left wanting and doesn't inform me at all.

Brilliant! So the is-ought problem is not solved. :)

Sorrow all looks pretty much the same; anger all looks pretty much the same; amusement all looks pretty much the same: emotions in humans are expressed in the same physiological responses. — Vera Mont

I don't see this one in my experience.

But:

No, emotions, either positive or negative, cannot be lumped in buckets. — Vera Mont

I think somewhat misunderstands emotions. At base, we have either aversions or affinity behaviours. Are we wanting to say that emotions are secondary to these directives, or that they are, in themselves, constituents of the direction (direction being the positive/negative on an experience spectrum, let's say)?

If the former, doesn't really do anything to even mention emotions other than as a description explanation of one's specific mindstate. If the latter, it seems to be that 'emotions' are just the circumstantial manifestation of a bare positive or negative valence (which, admittedly would put more truck into you " emotions in humans are expressed in the same physiological responses" - otherwise, it would be very hard to account for the apparent, pretty overwhelming, element of shared emotional states) which, I think might not capture what most consider 'emotions'. 'Sadness' probably isn;t it's own mindstate, for instance).

I’ve posted quotes from CPR proving this is not the case. — Mww

For my part, you have previous tried to do this but I have not seen you succeed. The CPR seems to explicitly state that the thing-in-itself is what impresses on the senses, which triggers phenomena, from which we infer the thing-in-itself based on the apparent logical requirements of the phenomena.

If you could find something that directly addresses this (no where is this to be found, so far) that would be helpful. Acknowledging the difficulties interpreting Kant, it's almost certainly best to figure out what you think is doing this job before arguing about whether or not it obtains in the text. As an example of why this is fundamentally important:

"The noumena are not objects of our possible experience; but by the same token, we can neither know how they are in themselves, nor can we know what influence they exert upon our sense perception."

This quote doesn't do what you're wanting, on my view.

The answer lies within the question itself. It is in relation to ourselves. It is in relation to us being alive. It is in relation to our very fundamental essence as living things. To live! To survive! To thrive! — Vivek

This is shitty Randian claims to non-existent properties. The only possible way this gets off the ground is admitted it is entirely subjective. And then that defeats the premise. So, good luck!

Neither nonsense, nor on stilts.
Your handwaving may rise to that charge, though.

Not particularly interesting, no.

Don't be afraid of your own views. Far, far, far, farrrrrrrrrr too many modern philosophy departments, philosophers, publications and lets say 'popular discourse' which is philosophical rely heavily on the filter of social acceptance for their comportment.
Don't do this. Be honest, forthright and be ready to be wrong, or be shown to be irrational or unreasonable, These are pejoratives, despite how much vitriol some who use them would have you believe.

I think the point is that this is still, at base, an inference and not a certainty verified from without. There's no reflective way to ensure this is the case, despite it being logically required for the question to arise. Every body wins :P

Wouldn’t you agree, though, that the brain is the representation of the thing which has those faculties? It’s two sides of the same coin. — Bob Ross

This is a really good point, just by the by, imo.

It points out the strict incoherence of referring to the organ of perception as anything more than a result of it's own function. Which is ... wild.

The indirect realist believes the same thing, but just adds things like apples and chairs to the list of things that cannot be perceived directly, and can only be inferred by the effects that they have on the things that can be perceived directly (which for them is something like qualia or sense data).

It's the same reasoning for everyone, they just disagree on where the line is drawn. — Michael

I think this is, perhaps, a little far, but given the point I've elucidated above I think its pretty clear that there is no line to draw, if we're going to accept that the organ/s of perception do not rise to the level of 'certainly extant as they are'.

do you think gives you accurate enough information to make an inference about reality as it is in-itself? — Bob Ross

I'm conflicted. On the one hand, my understanding of hte physical elements of perception lend themselves to 'No'. But, my understanding of my experience in the round lends itself to 'yes'. However, I think 'common sense' is often not at all sensible and reject arguments of the likes of Searle and Austin which literally hand-wave these problems away. They seem to refuse to do philosophy when it comes to perception, and enquiring into their own (imo clearly erroneous) priors. They don't seem to even be priors - they wont tell us their priors!! LOL

So, I have to say i'm not entirely sure where i land here anymore. It's likely in the previous discussions I was dead-set on 'no'.

You might say that with my philosophy it would still be impermissible, and I would probably ask you why you are killing a sperm in the first place. — Igitur

That's consistent, to me. I reject it, but it's a consistent view if this negative view is open to you.

Furthermore, if the implications of this idea do in fact clear back to a sperm, then why doesn’t the crime of killing an infant clear back to the fetus back to the sperm? — Igitur

I think this was the 'corner' I was trying to push you into (politely, lol). You've responded very well imo.
For me, that viability argument, coupled with the acceptance of a meaningful, but acceptable, margin of error in probability claims of a given case, give me the line I need.

Thank you :)

if we can trust our experience to tell us that we exist with other things in a reality — Bob Ross

We can only do this because it aligns with our experience. It poses no obstacle to indirect realism to use hte best of what we have.

I see @Michael is doing hte Lord's work already. Really telling how uncomfortable people are with the facts of perception.

OK, why do you think viability is what is morally relevant enough to make the difference between for it to be or not be permissible to abort/kill someone? — Hallucinogen

Couldn't be sure, but I'm an emotivist so my position doesn't hinge on my being able to explicate it.

That said, I'll have a go:

Viability is where the 'potential' slips from 'potential to eventually be able to survive outside the womb' (which, consider, has infinite ways to not manifest) to "(apparent)actual ability to survive outside the womb" (which, consider, requires essentially 'morally relevant action' to extinguish in most cases).

These lines are too stark, and (i think I noted) I accept some level of overlap in terms of acceptable abortions, or refusal of abortions, on my account. Edge cases will have to just exist within the frame work, and some will be, on the facts probably wrong on my view, but fit hte framework and are an acceptable trade off. Viability seems to be the only worthwhile way to distinguish. Whether it matters is up to the person making hte moral statement.

The difference is the probability. Killing one sperm isn’t really going to affect the chances of a successful pregnancy and birth. Killing a fetus is massively more likely to have prevented a life. — Igitur

Agree, but I have no idea what the import of that distinction is. The 'probability' for a single sperm could be, all else equal, the exact same as some other fetus (obviously, from a Sperm which had the same chances as the one im talking about). Point is taken, nonetheless. I would just suggest that what matters is that it is not 'actual' in either case (i take it arguments over 'actual' here are the real meat).

It's about the moral implications of the practical view of the potential of a fetus, specifically. — Igitur

This doesn't really give me anything. The 'moral implications' of a fetus are zero, as far as I'm concerned until viability (which means I have to take a bit of a pot-shot If I'm going to commit to a policy, but it would ensure probablity is taken account of ;) ). Could you perhaps elaborate on what you feel is presented here (in the concept of the 'practical view of the potential of a fetus' and why this wouldn't clear itself back to the Sperm without fault.

it's morally OK to abort a foetus because it isn't viable? — Hallucinogen

It is.

it seems like the worst kind of crime to purposefully prevent that individual the chance of a life. — Igitur

It really, truly does not seem like anything of any note. This would be the same as pretending "every sperm is sacred" . Preventing a potential is the same as allowing a potential. It is prior to the issue.

to become an individual — Echarmion

I think this matters, and is not quite as frivolous as many like to assert. Obviously, moments before birth would present moral issues, but if this is based on average viability it becomes as workable policy driver, at the least. There will always be people uncomfortable with where the line is drawn. I don't think we need to care too much. It certainly doesn't strike me as something that needs to be accounted for as between differing views. Just something we live with, unless we have some absolute moral compass (religious, for example).

that was not an insult my friend.

If I were you, I would get therapy.

NGOs made up of teenagers who do nothing at all managed by parents — Lionino

I think that's just the target audience. That's who they can rile up the most. That said, think its pretty damn clear Amnesty is a pretty blithering organisation largely just virtue signalling. But, they do get some stuff done that wouldn't other be done like clemency for blasphemy death sentences in the middle east and what not

(most recent reply to MU)
It seems to for me.

As far as your response to me, that's relatively clear as to the position - but I find it really hard to believe anyone could hold to moral realism, but not that there are moral facts (note: Not "there are no moral facts" but you do seem open to that too. Error Theory I guess. I see that as a cop-out personally). That seems contradictory. Well, not entirely contradictory, but the fact you are not committed to any moral facts seems to fly in the face of being committed to moral realism. I say that as someone who was a moral realist for basically comfort reasons, but have utterly failed to find anything even remotely resembling a moral 'fact'. The idea is incoherent to me at this point.

Colors are observable to all, and visual experiences are not. — Richard B

An absolutely crystal example of Searle's inability to think clearly. He very much likes his hand waving.

Personally, I see that version (deontastic!) as inapt. It essentially says
"there's a risk, so don't" which I can't quite see as a good enough reason not to procreate. The A-symmetry seems to rely on the consequentialist concept, even if the actual justification is more broad (i.e to live is to suffer. We shouldn't cause others to suffer. Don't have kids). I think I see why Leontiskos had a problem with this. It's more-or-less arbitrarily nihilistic. I think the consequentialist description overcomes some objections that are in concept, rather than execution. I wouldn't say life simply is suffering. I would say it is most likely the vast, vast, vast (perhaps 99.85%) of people born will, on balance, suffer more than they enjoy their life. Therefore, the possibility (0.15%) of a life worth living tells us not to create lives, on balance rather than because life is awful prima facie.

No, the change is the shadow falling over a part of the red ball, making that part look dark red. That's what there is to see. — jkop

Yep. There is naught to talk about but our experience of anything. Otherwise, Noumena.

The speculative metaphysics going on in here to support the idea that colour is "out there" is really weird. It's gotten very boring though as no one seems to be understanding each other, and I apologise to anyone who wanted a direct reply. Having read these last two pages, I cannot understand how half of you tie your shoes :nerd:

There must be more suffering before the arguments in favor of antinatalism become plausible. Is that right?

But if it is right then it seems like suffering does not always trump any other consideration, for the suffering of the pinprick does not trump the consideration of other pleasures. — Leontiskos

I think it would clearer to say that "the sum total of suffering ensured by living a human life outweights any version of hte calculus a ANist can provide".

I.e, on our understanding of suffering, pleasure and how to balance them (those terms are obviously lacking nuance) we cannot find a reason to risk the most likely outcome - that one's sum total of suffering vastly out-weights the other considerations in one's life. To bring a person into existence when there is a very high - almost inescapable - chance their life will be, on balance, bad for them, is wrong. (i would think that statement stands to reason - you need not agree, but it explains the position I think).

Being an AN is a result of running the calc, and never coming out with 'life' as the winner. Not that its pre-decided. Obviously, that would be stupid. But if its a 2/98 chance, i'm going to force someone into the race.

If suffering always trumps any other consideration — Leontiskos

It only does so once the calc is run. The statement is not meant to be a position of it's own. It's more "I've run this calc 60,000 times and zero came up on the side of procreation". Again, disagree, sure, but it's wrong to take this as a position rather than what causes the position to be taken up.

you may be willing to balance suffering and other considerations in a way that schopenhauer1 is not. — Leontiskos

Possibly. Reading down just this page I get the feeling he's just being imprecise in a way that sort of hides what I'm saying about in some more let's say confident language.

It's certainly possible I'm not quite groking the question, so if this doesn't seem apt - that'll be why lol.

Prima facie, I would say it doesn't tip the scales because other pleasures out weight a pinprick (scratching a decent itch would be enough v a pinprick). But the suffering of life is vastly more intense, prolonged and intractable than a pin prick.

That said, I don't really understand Amadeus' post here. This is how I read it: — Leontiskos

Ill try to re-word your interp. to see if it gets you anywhere..

I think the discussion of what level of suffering need be prevented is more or less the discussion that antinatalists have among themselves (and it is also the discussion that others wish to have with antinatalists). The type of suffering doesn't seem that interesting - it's the balance between the "intensity, length and meaningfulness of the suffering" and other considerations* that is interesting. The antinatalist position is that suffering always trumps any other consideration.

As a clarifying point, to me, 'other considerations' could be positive experiences, bare pleasure (in an abstract sense), character-building, the achievement of some life-long goal etc.. etc.. But the problem with all of this is it's speculation. We're only talking about unborn people - in this way, we can see that suffering is ensured (by the journey to Death) but positive experience is not vouchsafed by being born. One could have an all-in-all 'good' life, but that's highly unlikely on the view of the world and life ANs take, and at any rate, the suffering which comes with one's death (ones anxiety, fear etc.. and the pain of those around us) would usually trump that possibly-good life. Only religion can break that loop, and I think that's a poor way to gt around it myself.

Perhaps there are different approaches than his. — Leontiskos

Fair

Because I see apokrisis' objections as apt I see it as inevitable that questions of balance must emerge. — Leontiskos

Yep. I don't see them as apt at all given they were responding to me making that point.

It seems like your position is that there must be balance - not "carry out a balancing exercise". That is not reasonable at all, if that;'s the take. And if it's not then you've missed that ANs do the balancing exercise, and suffering tips the scales. Given this is the case across the board in relation to procreation then the exercise has been carried out and the answer is clear. I'm not sure what else you could want? To deny the result of hte exercise (on their account, that is?)

how could there ever be a balance between suffering and other considerations — Leontiskos

There is no need for one, unless for some strange metaphysical reason you believe this is hte state of things, arbitrarily. That seemed to be apokrisis' position. I found it funny, and a not just a little silly.

which sorts of suffering need to be prevented — Leontiskos

I think this is more-or-less the discussion ANs have (and honestly, the one whcih is usually attempted cross-positionally). The type though doesn't seem that interesting - it's the balance (ironic, given apokrisis' objections in the other thrad) between suffering and other considerations. The position is that suffering always wins out

Schop keeps requesting my presence. No matter how many years it’s been. It seems to energise him judging by the caps lock shouting. — apokrisis

I see... Again, fair enough lol. No idea about your history

I'd recommend avoiding such stereotyping, unless your goal is to be seen as an insensitive douche bag, in which case :up: — wonderer1

I thought it was really funny. I'd recommend he keep making jokes.

philosophy is playing a much longer game — schopenhauer1

True - I should probably remember the stark difference between this forum and in-class discussions I have.

Have you considered that what you see as 'trolling' others see as valid points that are not addressed by the argumentation. — I like sushi

Of course. This is now coming across as fairly bad faith (i know it isn't but please note what you're doing - telling me I'm not intellectually in the game, as it were). Assuming i've not considered the points adequately is a bit weird if you're getting at me for pointing out others have clearly not done the same (and even self-admitted they don't care to?) These are very different scenarios. Though, I don't fault you. You're doing roughly hte same as me.

You generalise and mention 180. — I like sushi

Several people clearly don't, and yes, that's from my perspective. I have no other. All you can actually do is disagree with me, but it doesn't even seem that you're doing so.

Whether they(interlocutors) agree is a totally different issue - one which doesn't matter if they clearly don't understand my views. I would be the only person in a position to know whether you have understood them.

That said, in terms of the wider issue you're point out, given there are three or four usual suspects in this respect, I don't find an issue with my take. I accept lots of people wont like it, and lots of people wont agree or understand. That's how life works.

Thank you for the link. When my current assignment is over, it might be something to go over with you.

I'm not sure what "I did" pertains to, or what video you're specifically referring to so shan't comment, but your conclusion here tells me you don't quite understand, so I'm not sure where to take that. I don't particularly care either, I'm just responding as I see fit.. A small remark, based on our exchanges, is that you did not present me any reason to think this AN position is not ethical. You might say "anti-ethical" but that must be on an ethical scale, so not sure its doing the job you think.

your position is correct and anyone who does not agree simply does not understand — I like sushi

No, not at all. I think, again, you have seriously (and uncharitably) misunderstood the point. I do not care whether 180 agrees. He doesn't make any sense to me msot of the time, so why would i care? The point is his constant misrepresentation, trolling remarks, insults and pure ignorance of what's been put to him.
It is genuinely fun. But, do not get it twisted: "you don't understand", for me, has absoltely nothing to do with agreement or disagreement :)

Why not just chill and enjoy the friction of lively debate? — apokrisis

I do.

And all your accusations seem better fitted to describing your own behaviour. — apokrisis

We often turn to shoot the messenger, don't we :)

It is not as if anyone can win or lose in an internet forum where no one is really invested in the outcomes or any independent party keeping score. — apokrisis

For sure. Which is why I woulkd ask again: Given you're (by your own admission) not understanding, or caring about what this thread is about - how come you're here laying out post after post of stuff that doesn't seem properly on topic? Surely it would make more sense to spend your time elsewhere on this forum?

ou can't seem to decide whether to love everyone or hate everyone — apokrisis

Neither. I don't know any of you. As a general disposition, Love is far closer to the mark though. I certainly enjoy my time here, and most interactions I have.

Unfortunately, we only have two options:

1. Discuss amongst ourselves (i.e those holders of the view, or sympathetic to the view); or
2. Put up with people who clearly misunderstand hte position, can't put together coherent objections and consistently insult us on the basis of a view we're not forcing on them.

I would hazard a guess neither is actually worth the time. That said, 180 is a never-ending fountain of bad replies which certainly help to elucidate the wrongness of some objections, so maybe there's that.

which your trolling is too lazy to pick-up on or too disingenuous to acknowledge my references elsewhere in this thread (as well as on schophenhauer1's other "AN" threads), so STFU, STFD and maybe you'll learn something, kid. — 180 Proof

You have proved yourself incapable of reading a simple response. AS always, proving you're not a serious person. It gets easier and easier. Maybe if you stopped behaving in a way that squarely fits th definition of trolling, you'd say something sensible.

anti-natalism is a kind of second-order malady — Leontiskos

Why not just admit you don't get it? That's what all of what you've put forward in this thread amounts to. As those who hold the view attest, consistently.

determining what moral truths if any there are to be had — Dan

Is the position that ethics are objective, whether or not we apprehend them? And that we actually don't apprehend them? This is somewhat confusing. One would think, if you're an objectivist, it's because you've come up against an objective ethic?

* New Zealand :)

Very abnormal, thought probably not so abnormal outside of the undergraduate cohort (remember, I'm a 'mature' learner and so not part of hte generation I'm studying with. It's been extremely obvious - even a couple of tutors are hopelessly ideological). My school just introduced a Bachelor of Social Justice Studies. I nearly threw up.

Then stop fucking posting in here? Good lord. Or, be honest - the reason you keep posting is because you care. One or the other, no?